Information Credibility vs State of Being
Virtual Handhold, LLC -  Human/Computer Interface Psychology
RSS Follow Become a Fan

Delivered by FeedBurner

Recent Posts

Define Education?
Trump Grandparent Expectorate Disease
The Game of Plausible Deniability
Zombie Apocalypse Escape?
The Story Motivates! 2016?


All one big Whole
powered by

Insight Blog

Information Credibility vs State of Being

Since I am constantly examining "What is Real?" in the digital environment I have to explore tons of websites that claim credibility.

By what credentials does a website become valid? If I was Google I most likely would go by the USA standard culture of what is right and wrong. That would mean science and data from academia, government sites and traditional medicine would be higher rated…BUT.

I have worked in government and academia and they truly don't know any more than the man on the street often times. Someone, somewhere collects data from imperfect sources (usually a survey from some regular people) and instantly THAT becomes the final word. Rarely is that data traced back to its source or method. That means that a question asking you to select A or B, or rate something will likely not fit exactly your experience, but that doesn't matter. Once you have made a selection "Numbers are GOD". 

Nobody has real access to everyone, even Google. They can access what you choose to say, view and engage with online, but not everyone puts their true thoughts online, many have a facade.

The "State of Being" lecture, which is the volume control of engagement shows that not always do we interact at the same volume. Sometimes we engage disassociatively just for entertainment, sometimes we are grasping at what validates our perspective immersively, and finally we are using our judgement mode to augmentatively add selectively to our frame of reference. All of these modes will vary with the moon, hormones or life experiences.

I worked at a research facility one time on air quality and was accumulating data by a strict criteria to ascertain if the particulates in the electron microscope image were fly ash, sulfates, pollen, or unknown particulates. I worked very diligently to follow the guidelines and report accurately, but at one point I recorded my findings on the back of the picture and came back to it and recounted them later. It was dismally disappointing. My perception of the data was significantly different. The results also at times didn't match expectations with the professor and so modifications were made to the formula by removing the parenthesis in the algebra? This is what we use as absolute governmental and scientific TRUTH?

At the Roadside Philosophers we have a first person group, which means we share perspectives and experiences one-on-one. The person is right there to question and we encourage cross examination and the "Whys". It doesn't take long to ascertain what volume they are engage in by the words they use in their first person account. This is invaluable in deciding their engagement level. Those little adjectives and sentence formation gives us their State of Being. However scientific papers are stripped of such clues. It is not considered scientific so all you see are numbers and graphs and bland documents. Lack of that context information is supposed to make reports MORE truthful?

I witness more and more scientific articles that say things like, "Taking Vitamin C MAY help ward off colds." The words May or Can or Might is more truth… because they really don't know. Just like Betty down the street tells you that gargling with salt has helped her sore throat. If you have someone right in front of you, you can bounce your questions off them directly.

Experiential first person accounts can be falsified just as easily as modifying a calculation. So what do I consider valid? The right to interrogate. If the website has an email to contact and the person responds with something other than a form letter, I will seriously consider it to be… An immersive perspective to consider.

We can examine validity all day, but the bottom line is that you need to understand that all perspectives are fluid and none can actually reflect 100% accurately the perspective from where YOU stand. 

So this is my point. You can never take a vacation from thinking or reflecting. Only you can draw the line from what is presented to where you stand in your journey of life. Do not give over your truth just because something claims validity over your experiences, unless you have the right of interrogation.

Enjoy your journey and claim your right to validate. 
Hugs, Pamala

1 Comment to Information Credibility vs State of Being:

Comments RSS
Straightening Machine on Wednesday, January 29, 2014 1:39 AM
Fantastic post.
Reply to comment

Add a Comment

Your Name:
Email Address: (Required)
Make your text bigger, bold, italic and more with HTML tags. We'll show you how.
Post Comment